Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:47, 4 January 2009

Click here to leave me a message. Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.

Six degrees of Misplaced Pages

I don't know how many of you played Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon during the early days of the internet, but I did. While watching the 2009 NHL Winter Classic, I was too lazy to use anything but mouse clicks to get to an article on Misplaced Pages. Then I wondered how hard it would be to get from one article to another completely unrelated one, without typing one thing. So, here's what I tried to do—European Parliament election, 2004 (Slovakia) to Sports Night. So the rules are, get from the first article to the last one in the least number of clicks, while never leaving Misplaced Pages. You need to list out how you did it of course, since someone will figure out some sneaky way to do this. What do you win? My lasting admiration and true respect on Misplaced Pages. Well, maybe not.

• 8 clicks. I'll tell you how later. OrangeMarlin 16:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• 6 clicks. I'll tell you if you buy me a barusaki. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What the hell is a barusaki. Didn't even show up on a google search.OrangeMarlin 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• 4 clicks. But I want coffee and a donut. (It's cold and foggy up here in Santa Barbara. Need a hot drink.)  :) Antandrus (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No good donuts in SB. But I'm trying to figure out 4 clicks.OrangeMarlin 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • FYI it's a legitimate solution (no side bar, no "what links here") Antandrus (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Can I use what links here? Article 1 -> what links here -> user talk:Orangemarlin -> article 2. Problem solved. ;) --B (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, didn't think of that. Darn it, I was looking forward to a donut or barusaki.

BTW there is a tool somewhere to calculate this automatically (I didn't use it -- now that would be cheating.)  :) Antandrus (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's sneaky. Not accepted as a real answer. OrangeMarlin 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• One click: Random article. YMMV.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• I hate all of you. Just on principle. OrangeMarlin 18:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have admin powers any more. Neener neener. OrangeMarlin 18:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Since I already have your lasting respect and admiration, which you propose as a reward, participation in this exercise seems a bit pointless. MastCell  04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. I'd like you to point out the diff where I have ever expressed any lasting respect to anyone. Sheesh. OrangeMarlin 04:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean besides Jim Boeheim? MastCell  05:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, beside Boeheim, who is just this side of Einstein on my respect scale. OrangeMarlin 08:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New Year's Gift

Take your pick. This seemed like your sort of thing. Happy 2009! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A gift that keeps on giving. Thanks you friggin' commie, pinko, tree-hugger.  :) OrangeMarlin 03:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people associate communism with tree-hugging. The environmental records of the Soviet Union and Communist China make ExxonMobil look like Greenpeace. Of course, since communism and environmentalism are both deeply un-American threats to our way of life, I suppose there is some common ground... MastCell  04:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Boris (nee' Ray Ray) IS a tree hugger. OrangeMarlin 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I'm thinking about converting to Druidism. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews (2nd nomination)

I created a compromise with the nominator to close the AfD. Can I reopen the existing AfD, or create a new one, asking for this page to be deleted? This editor's behavior has been so toxic, I regret ever helping her.travb (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and not very familiar with the AfD process. Someone else will need to help you out here. And I agree with your assessment. Sometimes smoking the AGF weed just doesn't work. OrangeMarlin 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a new one has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of Jews (3rd nomination). --B (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, wow I just voted "delete" ...(the saddest say was when manatees in popular culture got deleted :() Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)

Thank you for your input. Best wishes this new year travb (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would be speedily deleted, but I guess not. I can't even believe some of the comments being made. Big noses??????? Where does this crap come from. I'm going to get drunk. OrangeMarlin 21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this response to you. Well I also posted the same as you that I found this offensive, I wonder why you were the one he decided to chide because you said you were offended. I think that article is ridiculous for an encyclopedia. This is the second time to try to delete, amazing! Enjoy your drink(s), I'm off to bed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crohnie (talk • contribs)

I would delete it G4, but at this point, I can predict the future and tell you exactly what would happen if I did. It would be taken it to WP:DRV, there would be whining about the injustice of evil deletionist admins, the AFD would be reopened, and the only thing it would accomplish is set back the ultimate deletion of the article by 2 weeks. I have removed the racist stereotype list from the talk page and suggested that if Deeceevoice readds it again, blocking is in order, but unfortunately at this point, speedying the article would only result in more drama and a lengthier overall process. That is, I freely admit, a horrible failing of our procedures that garbage is allowed to exist in a published encyclopedia while we collectively decide what to do with it. --B (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how the community would take an article about Stereotypes of Christians, but I'm sure us big-noses while feasting with Pontius Pilate can come up with one. Wait a minute, did I just quote Life of Brian? LOL. OrangeMarlin 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Minoan eruption

What is with these edit summaries? People often simply use BC without any intention of it being a "Christian" edit. Is there some proof this is Christian POV pushing in this article? I can't find it in the edit summaries. I don't see any notes by you on the talk page, and I think that BCE is the designation of choice (note, it's actually the 1618 that is Christian POV) for Misplaced Pages articles. If that's the case, and there is no indication that this article is being used to force the conversion of Misplaced Pages editors to Christianity, or merely to push a point of view based in Christianity--to be less hyperbolic--teaching other editors to use BCE rather than BE would be a useful contribution to Misplaced Pages. "Changed BC to BCE, a preferred, and considered more neutral dating choice on Misplaced Pages." As an example. In fact your edit summaries appear to be far more anti-Christain POV than the use of BC appear to be Christian POV. If I missed something nefarious earlier in the article, please bring the issue up on the article's talk page. --KP Botany (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, you can ask that a bot be created to change these. If BCE is preferred, as it is in most modern writings, this can be accomplished without multiple edits per article and throughout Misplaced Pages. --KP Botany (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read over the user's contributions. It's pure Christian POV. Nevertheless, the article was written with BCE (since I wrote it, I'd know, cause I don't ascribe to the BC/AD convention, since it's not relevant to my life). I am all right using BC/AD when it has a history in an article. But when an article is almost all about a volcanic eruption that affected the Greek and Egyptian worlds, using BC is kind of ridiculous. The editor has been reverted in a number of articles. No AGF makes sense here. OrangeMarlin 03:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I don't trust bots. I saw too many Terminator movies. :D. OrangeMarlin 03:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. I kind of resent your lack of AGF in stating that I'm anti-Christian. I'm anti-POV whatever it is. BCE is neutral. BC is not for an essentially scientific article. I would never argue for the use of CE in place of AD in an article about the new testament. OrangeMarlin 03:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My comment says, "your edit summaries appear to be far more anti-Christian POV than the use of BC," and I made sure it said just that, rather than stating you are anti-Christian. They really do come across as very hostile.

A link to one of the changes to BC from BCE would have done just fine in response, or comments on the article talk page. And, again, your edit summaries don't help as much as pointing out this is the convention on Misplaced Pages. Other editors will learn from that, so would casual checkers of the history.

I don't trust bots either. --KP Botany (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm a hostile editor. I'm fairly comfortable with that. He was reverted once. Second time, I'm not very nice. Anyways, I get your point, and we need to move on. OrangeMarlin 04:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've been known to be a hostile first chance editor. I'm trying to cool it, though. I think we did move on. I hope you saw my edit summary--it was an indicator that a good story is always better than a Wiki spat. --KP Botany (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got multiple chat rooms on here this afternoon. LOL. Missed the edit summary.OrangeMarlin 04:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait until your talk page gets taken to WP:MFD for WP:NOT#WEBHOST and WP:NOT#CHAT. --B (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll just mention that a high ranking admin participated. That should protect me. Oh. Wait. OrangeMarlin 05:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't trust bots but you trust admins? Uh.... --KP Botany (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you use admin and trust in the same sentence? Ummmmm..... OrangeMarlin 08:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on something

This view of yours, specifically. Do you believe Misplaced Pages should exclude covering topics based on whether certain individuals or groups are offended by the topic the article covers? A one-word "yes" or "no" answer should do. Thanks. Warren -talk- 22:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Warren, I'm not OrangeMarlin, but that's a loaded question. The issue here is not whether or not somebody is offended. Lots of Misplaced Pages content is offensive to someone. For example, it has been widely reported that many Muslims do not like our articles about Muhammad including pictures of him. That's not a reason that we accept for deleting something. What is a reason is when an article serves no purpose whatsoever other than promoting bigotry. Any actual stereotypes that are worth mentioning can be fully covered in Antisemitism or another appropriate article. Rather than reporting bigotry, this article is bigotry. The issue isn't that it offends someone - the issue is that it is morally repugnant and ought to offend everyone. --B (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks B. And there is no way yes or no will suffice. I am offended by lots on Misplaced Pages, especially the New York Yankees article. An open and well-written article, no matter what it discusses, should be included here. These stereotypes are ridiculous, childish, unsourced, not notable, and insulting. Discussed academically in the anti-semitism article, as B suggested, is fine. I accept that. In a list of outdated and silly characterizations is just plain insulting and frankly racist. And to be honest, it's incomplete. So my answer is Yes, if done right. It's NO, in its current formulation. Sorry to give you an nuanced answer, but that's what you're getting. OrangeMarlin 02:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Upon doing digging, I figured out that the only reason Deeceevoice created this article and the stereotypes of white people article was to make a WP:POINT. See . It annoys ... well ... infuriates me ... how much time has been wasted dealing with this utter nonsense. His/her objection is to Stereotypes of African Americans. Rather than nominating it for deletion, he/she set out to create poorly sourced articles about prejudices against everyone else. What fun! --B (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding right? Uh, you're not? This is more than infuriating. DCvoice should be blocked. Honestly. OrangeMarlin 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See all these. Obviously the whole bunch should either be AFD together, or else all should be brought to a common accepted standard, which implies a shitload of contentious work that nobody's going to enjoy doing. LeadSongDog (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What everyone is saying is that deeceevoice, in a fit of pointiness, gets pissed off that there's a Stereotype of African Americans article, then decides to make a whole bunch of similar articles. And this isn't a blockable offense? OrangeMarlin 04:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Textbook example of WP:POINT (see especially the second entry under Examples). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

See also what Drenched started (and is evidently proud of).LeadSongDog (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)